Character creation ends with mostly the same 18,16,14,12,10,8 build

[xris]

In general, with a few exceptions, no matter what class or ancestry you want, you can obtain the following Ability Scores

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 (if the race has a Flaw) or
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 (if the race doesn't have a Flaw, i.e. Human ancestry).

You might have to limit your choice of Background to obtain the required combination of Ability Boosts but even then, there are at least 6 of the 19 Backgrounds that will give you the right combination of fixed and free Ability Boosts, no matter what class or race you select.

The only time you can't obtain a 18 in the Ability Score you want, is when your Ancestry Flaw coincides with the Ability you want to achieve 18 in. This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability.

It's not possible to obtain two 18 Ability Scores, the best you can do is an 18 and a 16. It's also possible to get 16, 16, 16 as an alternate to 18, 16, 14. Note: this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation.

It just seems that no matter what class or race combination you want, with very little effort or sacrifice, you end up with the same 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 score (or 18,16,12,12,10,10 for humans).

There are plenty of other combinations as well but if you want to try and concentrate to get high Ability Scores then the single 18 is the best that's possible (without relying on lucky dice throws). I would think a lot of players would try and optimize a build such they get as high a score as possible in one favoured score and so on down. It seems way too easy to obtain this.

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

So as long as your Dwarf doesn't want to be a Bard or Sorcerer, your Gnomes and Halflings don't want to be Barbarians of Paladins, or your Goblin doesn't want to be a Cleric or Druid, then you can obtain a pretty easy 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 character! Humans are limited to only a 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 character.

An 18 Ability Score is a +4 Ability Modifier, it also seems somewhat boring to have to wait till Level 10 before you can get to +5 in an Ability Modifier. It seems to me that yet again the +1/Level just swamps out anything else during level progression, but that's another story.

[Aadgarvven]

xris wrote:

In general, with a few exceptions, no matter what class or ancestry you want, you can obtain the following Ability Scores

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 (if the race has a Flaw) or
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 (if the race doesn't have a Flaw, i.e. Human ancestry).

You might have to limit your choice of Background to obtain the required combination of Ability Boosts but even then, there are at least 6 of the 19 Backgrounds that will give you the right combination of fixed and free Ability Boosts, no matter what class or race you select.

The only time you can't obtain a 18 in the Ability Score you want, is when your Ancestry Flaw coincides with the Ability you want to achieve 18 in. This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability.

It's not possible to obtain two 18 Ability Scores, the best you can do is an 18 and a 16. It's also possible to get 16, 16, 16 as an alternate to 18, 16, 14. Note: this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation.

It just seems that no matter what class or race combination you want, with very little effort or sacrifice, you end up with the same 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 score (or 18,16,12,12,10,10 for humans).

There are plenty of other combinations as well but if you want to try and concentrate to get high Ability Scores then the single 18 is the best that's possible (without relying on lucky dice throws). I would think a lot of players would try and optimize a build such they get as high a score as possible in one favoured score and so on down. It seems way too easy to obtain this.

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

So as long as your Dwarf doesn't want to be a Bard or Sorcerer, your Gnomes and Halflings don't want to be Barbarians of Paladins, or your Goblin doesn't...

I think this is a good post.

This is only for first level and it seems there are three possibilities. Now could you be so kind to do this with levels, because i think the +2 to four abilities will make the stats even more similar.

[FitzTheRuke]

I actually like it (well enough), because I've long since stopped trying to define any of my character's personal characteristics based on their ability scores. Ability arrays used to bother me, but I've given up. It just makes it easier/faster to make characters. Of course, they've hidden how simple it is, so you spend quite some time before you discover that there is very little actual choice.

In fact, I'd go one further than you: All those add up to a combined bonus of 9 (conveniently equal to the number of "bumps" a human gets (everyone else gets 10 bumps minus 1 flaw).

So I've stopped looking at all the things my Ancestry/Background/Class gives you (bump-wise) because like you've suggested, unless you try something that works against what would be logical for any of those three (like something weird like making a Dwarf Criminal Rogue and putting nothing in Con or Dex and jacking Cha) you're going to be covered by your floating bumps.

As you say, the Dwarf Criminal Rogue is going to wind up (12, 18, 16, 10, 14, 8) something like 90% of the time (unless you want to go for that sneak-attack-with-a-mace feat for your story or want her to be more of a liar.)

[Claxon]

xris wrote:

In general, with a few exceptions, no matter what class or ancestry you want, you can obtain the following Ability Scores

18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 (if the race has a Flaw) or
18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 (if the race doesn't have a Flaw, i.e. Human ancestry).

You might have to limit your choice of Background to obtain the required combination of Ability Boosts but even then, there are at least 6 of the 19 Backgrounds that will give you the right combination of fixed and free Ability Boosts, no matter what class or race you select.

The only time you can't obtain a 18 in the Ability Score you want, is when your Ancestry Flaw coincides with the Ability you want to achieve 18 in. This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability.

It's not possible to obtain two 18 Ability Scores, the best you can do is an 18 and a 16. It's also possible to get 16, 16, 16 as an alternate to 18, 16, 14. Note: this isn't a complaint, it's just an observation.

It just seems that no matter what class or race combination you want, with very little effort or sacrifice, you end up with the same 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 score (or 18,16,12,12,10,10 for humans).

There are plenty of other combinations as well but if you want to try and concentrate to get high Ability Scores then the single 18 is the best that's possible (without relying on lucky dice throws). I would think a lot of players would try and optimize a build such they get as high a score as possible in one favoured score and so on down. It seems way too easy to obtain this.

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

So as long as your Dwarf doesn't want to be a Bard or Sorcerer, your Gnomes and Halflings don't want to be Barbarians of Paladins, or your Goblin doesn't...

Are you complaining about this? Because I absolutely love it and consider it a feature, not a bug. At least for ability score generation.

The ancestry feats are a problem in my opinion, and I do agree that too many of the races feel too similar and I dislike the notion of growing into your race's culture heritage as you level up, rather than being an adult member of your race with those facets already existing. Level 1 characters feel more like teenagers who are going on a coming of age adventure rather than adults who have codified experiences as members of their race/heritage.

[Alchemic_Genius]

I actually feel it's a strength of the system that your race no longer stops any one race from excelling at almost any class. I cant begin to tell you how happy I was that my curiousity driven gnome alchemist was no longer inherently weaker at his passion than, say, an elf or a human. Plus, realistically, the old way still pretty much resulted in the same 3-5 arrays, anyway, depending if your were MAD or SAD.

[JackieLane]

I actually quite like this too. It makes creating characters fairly simple and quick (rather than having to add points in things, end up with one loose point that can't really go anywhere, wonder what to do with it). It also helps with balance, especially considering there is now no almost universal dump stat. The number of parties I saw before with one hyper-charismatic sorcerer/bard/oracle speaking for the group, and the three other people standing in the background during social encounters because they know their 7 in charisma (or 5) will cause trouble... I don't feel like the new stat arrays take that much away from us. MAD builds can still get two 18 stats at level 5, which is decent, overall power has been reduced, which explains the lower late-game stats, and there are still quite a few other decisions to make if you want to create a character that is particularly good at one thing (plus we will eventually get more than just core stuff).

I do wish we had one or two more ancestry feats at level 1, though.

[PossibleCabbage]

I love being able to create character stats extremely quickly, and "18, 16,14,12, 10, 8" is a classic memorable array anyway.

For as long as I did PF1, I could never manage to do point buy without looking at a chart.

[Kerobelis]

While you are correct, there are other subtle changes.

If you want an 18 in a stat that isn't core to you class, it is not possible (say an 18 CON fighter or a mage who plans to switch to fighter wanting that 18ST).

It makes the math easier for the designers as they can assume a starting point (basically +5 for 1st level characters) for their bonus to key attacks, spell DCs, etc.

I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

[Dekalinder]

Problem is, you can only obtain the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you pick a race with +2 in 2 of your your 3 primary stat and -2 in your chosen dump stat. This severly limit your choice of race.
For example, if you want to get 18, 16, 14 in CHA-DEX-COS your only choice of race can be halfling. There is no currently legal build choice to start with 18-16-14 in CHA-STR-COS or INT-STR-COS nor INT-DEX-COS. I didn't list all possibility since I didn't sit and try for all of them, but there are probably others.
Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is superior in all ways conceivable to the 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

[PossibleCabbage]

Kerobelis wrote:

I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

One of the things that's really great is that one can pick ancestry, background, and class purely on "what sounds interesting to play" and end up almost done.

Like someone can just say "I want to play a Dwarf Alchemist who was a Bartender" and all they need to do is assign 6 free and 1 partially free (Cha or Con) stat bonuses, 3 of which probably go to intelligence.

[kaid]

I think this largely is as intended. It makes it a lot easier to balance and design your classes which even with the freedom to put points around you can makes some pretty good assumptions as to what the character is build like.

Also with the starfinder like attribute improvements even MAD characters can work reasonably well as it is pretty easy to keep 4 stats up and with the diminishing returns past 18 stat easy to bring up any lagging stat that over time you find you need.

[FitzTheRuke]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Like someone can just say "I want to play a Dwarf Alchemist who was a Bartender" and all they need to do is assign 6 free and 1 partially free (Cha or Con) stat bonuses, 3 of which probably go to intelligence.

Yeah, that's pretty nice. (Speaking of which, that character sounds fun ! "Sir Mixalot"! (I would never actually name him this, but it's funny).

[Skerek]

Kerobelis wrote:

While you are correct, there are other subtle changes.

If you want an 18 in a stat that isn't core to you class, it is not possible (say an 18 CON fighter or a mage who plans to switch to fighter wanting that 18ST).

It makes the math easier for the designers as they can assume a starting point (basically +5 for 1st level characters) for their bonus to key attacks, spell DCs, etc.

I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

I realised this the other day, the current system does not support non typical builds well. I remember one of blog posts (or a dev) saying that is was possible to have a functioning cleric with 10 wisdom. Although this cleric is possible it's probably not going to be very effective, it certainly won't have an 18 in any ability.

I'd like to have an 18 in a score that's not my class's primary stat for some builds. I imagine any gish will want 18 str (or dex if there's an easy way to get dex to damage outside of the rouge) and decent con, a casting stat of 10 for casting buffs seems to be suffice in this system.

[xris]

Claxon wrote:

Are you complaining about this?

It was mostly an observation. Personally I would like to have some trade-offs when building a character so I guess it is somewhat less than ideal for me. It's part of the same issue that I see character progression as being somewhat bland.

On one hand, I appreciate the simplicity but on the other it makes creating any character rather bland because they end up the same way.

Considering PF2 is all about choice and options, I don't see this does much in the way of obtaining this. I don't see the trade-offs, there's nothing to sacrifice short term to obtain long term.

If they wanted to simplify matters, then simplify matters. Just say you have an array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 and 8. This could easily be added as an option.

Instead of adding fixed Ability Modifiers and free Ability Modifiers (and possibly an Ability Flaw) from Ancestry, Background, Class, along with the four Freebies, just say you start with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10 and 8.

You could say that the 18 must be used as your Key Ability, but why? Same with the flaw, you could say that you can't have an 18 in your Ability Flaw, by why? If you want to make it easy to create a character, then make it easy.

There's no reason why Character Creation could appeal to those who just want to get on and create a character and those who want to make some meaningful choices in the process.

Having a fixed array as an option is going to help new players and those who don't want to mess around in optimising. Currently, it's almost there anyway but it's not immediately obvious you can almost build what you want (without the page flipping and false choices).

Kerobelis wrote:

If you want an 18 in a stat that isn't core to you class, it is not possible (say an 18 CON fighter or a mage who plans to switch to fighter wanting that 18ST).

I mentioned that in the OP. "This is assuming you want to obtain 18 in the Class's Key Ability."

Kerobelis wrote:

I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

Personally, I don't see it as an interesting process. It's definitely a quick and simple process if they gave the option to use 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8.

And there's nothing wrong with a quick and simple process for character creation. It would also be nice if there were more of a choice for those who wanted the choice.

Dekalinder wrote:

Problem is, you can only obtain the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you pick a race with +2 in 2 of your your 3 primary stat and -2 in your chosen dump stat. This severly limit your choice of race.

For example, if you want to get 18, 16, 14 in CHA-DEX-COS your only choice of race can be halfling. There is no currently legal build choice to start with 18-16-14 in CHA-STR-COS or INT-STR-COS nor INT-DEX-COS. I didn't list all possibility since I didn't sit and try for all of them, but there are probably others.

Indeed. I didn't claim you could achieve specific Ability Scores for specific Abilities. I limited the numbers just such that you could obtain an 18 in an appropriate Key Ability.

The point was that you can obtain 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 as Ability Scores (for non-humans, etc.)

Dekalinder wrote:

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is superior in all ways conceivable to the 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

I agree with you there.

[modus0]

My question regarding the stat generation is: What makes Elf Rogue A different stat-wise from Elf Rogue B?

Why wouldn't I use 10, 18, 16, 8, 12, 14, or 10, 18, 16, 10, 12, 12 for the stats on every Elf Rogue I create?

[Kerobelis]

Skerek wrote:

Kerobelis wrote:

While you are correct, there are other subtle changes.

If you want an 18 in a stat that isn't core to you class, it is not possible (say an 18 CON fighter or a mage who plans to switch to fighter wanting that 18ST).

It makes the math easier for the designers as they can assume a starting point (basically +5 for 1st level characters) for their bonus to key attacks, spell DCs, etc.

I think others have mentioned it as well, it makes character creation an interesting process, that may also be easier to teach?

I realised this the other day, the current system does not support non typical builds well. I remember one of blog posts (or a dev) saying that is was possible to have a functioning cleric with 10 wisdom. Although this cleric is possible it's probably not going to be very effective, it certainly won't have an 18 in any ability.

I'd like to have an 18 in a score that's not my class's primary stat for some builds. I imagine any gish will want 18 str (or dex if there's an easy way to get dex to damage outside of the rouge) and decent con, a casting stat of 10 for casting buffs seems to be suffice in this system.

That is done on purpose so you can't outshine another class easily. I actually think it is a good thing with the removal of BAB and iterative attacks. Otherwise why make a fighter.

[Kerobelis]

modus0 wrote:

My question regarding the stat generation is: What makes Elf Rogue A different stat-wise from Elf Rogue B?

Why wouldn't I use 10, 18, 16, 8, 12, 14, or 10, 18, 16, 10, 12, 12 for the stats on every Elf Rogue I create?

There is no denying that stats will be very similar for most builds. It is just a small amount of flavor to an array build. I think you can even get a 16, 16, 16,10, 10, 10 build if you want for your elf, which is quite a bit different. So you can do a little bit of customization.

There is an option for rolling stats if you dislike the primary system.

[Michael Sayre]

Skerek wrote:

I realised this the other day, the current system does not support non typical builds well. I remember one of blog posts (or a dev) saying that is was possible to have a functioning cleric with 10 wisdom. Although this cleric is possible it's probably not going to be very effective, it certainly won't have an 18 in any ability.

But the aforementioned cleric can have a 16 Strength backed by exactly the same number of buff and healing spells as an 18 WIS cleric, meaning that you can play an effective buff and bash "warpriest" type build easily and effectively. Effective =/= "has an 18 in a stat at 1st level". The removal of so many of PF1's restrictions like the hard cap on spell levels based on casting stat, along with the additions of the new action economy and some of the new class abilities, mean that there are significantly broader avenues for unusual or atypical builds to thrive and flourish. Weapon and combat enhancement wizards and sorcerers have a lot of viable territory now that they didn't really have before, clerics can embrace certain roles much more readily without needing significant archetypes or hybrid classes, etc.

I'd definitely suggest trying out an atypical build and looking for the possibilities within that character space before leaping to too many conclusions about how narrow the design space is on the player side. Longspear sorcerers with 16 Strength and 14 CHA, Gorumite "warpriests" who dedicate their abilities towards buff and healing options, "arcane archer" wizards who true strike or magic weapon into a ranged attack (amplified with Magical Striker at 4th level), and numerous other builds that deviate from the base expectations of the class can all work with really high degrees of effectiveness once you've put together the pieces to bring it together. The next time I get to play in a playtest game that's tackling one of the above-1st-level adventures, I'm going to be trying out a "martial mystic theurge" build that uses cleric as a base and multiclasses into wizard, which is one of the more strained stat builds I've tried to put together so far. I'm not terribly worried about its effectiveness though, specifically because the new stat generation method makes it a lot easier to hit the necessary markers to grab what I need for the build without relying on generous rolls or significantly dumping one or more stats to free up the points. YMMV of course, but there's a lot of territory to tackle and explore and a few different ways to manipulate the ability score generation into interesting and/or unusual builds that are nonetheless effective at a variety of roles.

[Nelroy]

Seems to me the current design of character creation is supposed to net generally the same stat array (from an optimal standpoint). This is probably great for 2 things:

1) Play testing

2) Pathfinder society play

and I +1 Kerobelis... you can always roll characters for a more varying ability array. Personally I prefer this... everyone getting roughly the same stats feels a bit like everyone getting participation awards... some of my favorite / memorable RP moments/characters are attributed to characters with a terrible stat and having to build and strategize around/despite that.

[xris]

Kerobelis wrote:

There is an option for rolling stats if you dislike the primary system.

I think the issue with rolling Ability Scores is that odd numbers are "wasted".

Due to the 18 barrier, rolling a 17 is effectively the same as rolling a 16. Rolling a 15 is effectively the same as a 14, and so on.

I haven't worked out the odds, but it seems difficult to get a decent set of number using the 4d6 method.

[PossibleCabbage]

Starting a class with a non-standard stat or two as primary (Wizards/Clerics with Int/Wis as their 3rd or 4th highest stat, say) does leave you with a 16 in your "hurting stuff" stat but because of how stat bonuses work in PF2 starting with a 16 in something means you are exactly +1 behind in your related rolls for 50% of the levels (1-4, 10-14, 20) and are otherwise exactly even with someone who started at 18.

So the biggest problem with clerics/wizards/sorcerers who want to smash face is less feat support and fewer total feats so things like "grab the fighter dedication" are more painful, not "you can't have an 18 str."

[Liir]

Where does it say that you can't spend two or more of the "Step 4: Four Free Ability Boosts" on the same Ability Score?

[Kerobelis]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Starting a class with a non-standard stat or two as primary (Wizards/Clerics with Int/Wis as their 3rd or 4th highest stat, say) does leave you with a 16 in your "hurting stuff" stat but because of how stat bonuses work in PF2 starting with a 16 in something means you are exactly +1 behind in your related rolls for 50% of the levels (1-4, 10-14, 20) and are otherwise exactly even with someone who started at 18.

So the biggest problem with clerics/wizards/sorcerers who want to smash face is less feat support and fewer total feats so things like "grab the fighter dedication" are more painful, not "you can't have an 18 str."

But you still have all your spells as well! You can't have everything! There needs to be some balance. You just got a big buff to BAB compared to PF1 and to your # of attacks.

[xris]

Liir wrote:

Where does it say that you can't spend two or more of the "Step 4: Four Free Ability Boosts" on the same Ability Score?

Page 18, Ability Boosts.

Quote:

When you gain multiple ability boosts at the same

time, you must apply each one to a different score. So,
for example, if your character is a dwarf, she receives an
ability boost to her Constitution score, her Wisdom score,
and one free ability boost, which can be applied to any
score other than Constitution or Wisdom.

[Liir]

xris wrote:

Liir wrote:

Where does it say that you can't spend two or more of the "Step 4: Four Free Ability Boosts" on the same Ability Score?

Page 18, Ability Boosts.

Quote:

When you gain multiple ability boosts at the same

time, you must apply each one to a different score. So,
for example, if your character is a dwarf, she receives an
ability boost to her Constitution score, her Wisdom score,
and one free ability boost, which can be applied to any
score other than Constitution or Wisdom.

Given that information, really need to stop using the word “free” in that section.

Instead of:
After you’ve chosen your character’s ancestry and background, you have four free ability boosts you can assign to her ability scores as you see fit.

If should say something like:
After you’ve chosen your character’s ancestry and background, apply an ability boost to four different ability scores of your choice.

... or they could just swap Step 4 with Step 5 and let those four free ability boosts really be "Free" (while retaining the 18 ability score maximum at 1st level from page 18).

[Tholomyes]

I don't think the system homogenizes as much as people say it does. In my group, only one character (out of 4) had one of the two listed ability score distributions, and that was because they wanted to multiclass fighter as a sorcerer, so they were incentivized to prioritize the 18/16/12/12/10/10 distribution. Outside of that, between a character whose ancestries didn't necessarily line up with their class's primary or secondary/tertiary ability scores, or human characters who felt like two 14s was better than a a 16 and a 12, no one else took the 18/16/14/12/10/8 or 18/16/12/12/10/10 stat array.

[MrGWillickers]

Just made characters with my party yesterday. With the exception of one player who went 16 16 14 14 12 8 (mostly for flavor reasons), they all got this standard array you mentioned.

I think overall Paizo succeeded at a system that allows more customization (even if some of that customization is more of a promise for the future than anything currently in the book). But this doesn't really seem to work for that. Most of my players are more RP focused than Power focused, and this is still where they went in character creation.

[World of Dim Light]

Nelroy wrote:

Seems to me the current design of character creation is supposed to net generally the same stat array (from an optimal standpoint). This is probably great for 2 things:

1) Play testing

2) Pathfinder society play

and I +1 Kerobelis... you can always roll characters for a more varying ability array. Personally I prefer this... everyone getting roughly the same stats feels a bit like everyone getting participation awards... some of my favorite / memorable RP moments/characters are attributed to characters with a terrible stat and having to build and strategize around/despite that.

The problem is, define the meaning of optimal. For the power gamer, this is 'what array gets me the best stats for hurting things/rendering skill checks trivial.' For someone trying to create a certain character type, it is 'what array gets me the best emulation of my concept.' The former is, of course going to consider an 18 in their primary stat mandatory. The latter may well feel that an extra 16 is worth the cost of not having an 18, especially if their concept is a hybrid of classes, rather than being a pure class. There is still room for customization, as soon as you reject the idea that you must be super-specialized.

[Reverse]

I seem to have ended up with a 16 / 14 / 12 / 12 / 14 / 10 for a first character, rather than this required array? Am I doing something wrong, or is it actually possible to build characters with different stats?

[Irontruth]

xris wrote:

Seems rather boring to me. Very little to decide, very little give or take. That, plus the fact that you only gain one Ancestry Feat at 1st level, it makes all the class / race combinations rather similar and dull (for want of a better word). They all seem painted from the same brush, no long term / short term trade offs.

What kind of trade offs are you expecting? Does exchanging your 18 for a 17, to raise the 12 to a 13 really make that big of a difference to you? Are you claiming that you would roleplay that character significantly differently? If we recorded two games, each game with a Dwarven fighter (NG), without being told the which was which, I highly doubt you could tell me which one was the 17/13 fighter, and which was the 18/12 fighter. Of course, you'd be right half the time, but purely by chance.

Race, class and alignment are much more interesting and significant choices. Small differences in stats are extremely low impact, and so low impact that other than the 5 minutes during creation, you'll barely notice them.

[PossibleCabbage]

Reverse wrote:

I seem to have ended up with a 16 / 14 / 12 / 12 / 14 / 10 for a first character, rather than this required array? Am I doing something wrong, or is it actually possible to build characters with different stats?

So I have a Dwarf Monk who starts at 16/16/16/12/10/8, a Dwarf Barbarian who starts at 18/16/14/12/10/8, a Human Cleric with 16/16/14/12/10, a Half-Orc Fighter who starts at 18/16/12/12/10/10, etc.

So lots of arrays are possible.

[forger03]

As a replacement for point buys I like this system. It's less complicated than old PF point buy and has a similar end result to the 1-1 point by from Starfinder, but still ends up more or less the same as that. Actually, I think this ends up with better stats than Starfinder Point buy or Pathfinder 25 point buy, while being much less complicated (to me). Given that rolling is and will always be an option, I don't see a problem with using this ability boost concept to replace Point Buys.

[Freagarthach]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Reverse wrote:

I seem to have ended up with a 16 / 14 / 12 / 12 / 14 / 10 for a first character, rather than this required array? Am I doing something wrong, or is it actually possible to build characters with different stats?

So I have a Dwarf Monk who starts at 16/16/16/12/10/8, a Dwarf Barbarian who starts at 18/16/14/12/10/8, a Human Cleric with 16/16/14/12/10, a Half-Orc Fighter who starts at 18/16/12/12/10/10, etc.

So lots of arrays are possible.

You are not doing it wrong - in my opinion, the original post is a flawed premise. I have made characters for 1st, 4th, and 7th level, and none of them had an 18 at 1st level. With the way stat boosts work once a stat is already at 18 (only 1 increase each time), in my opinion it makes a lot more sense to spread the stats you need at starting and allow the character to grow into one or more 18s as they gain levels (and respective difficulty of challenges they face).

Not only are a variety of arrays possible, they are preferable to the 18 arrays premised by the original post for different players, characters, circumstances, and tastes.

[Wolfism]

I don't like that I can't sacrifice attack to make a really tough starting character. One of my favorite characters was a drunken matter monk who started with an 18 in constitution, took toughness and got temporary hit points for drinking. Can't ever start with an 18 in con in this system though and I'm not really clear on why.

Seems like martials should have a choice of all physical stats as their primary ability.

[Thaboe]

JackieLane wrote:

The number of parties I saw before with one hyper-charismatic sorcerer/bard/oracle speaking for the group, and the three other people standing in the background during social encounters because they know their 7 in charisma (or 5) will cause trouble...

But they could always just say a few words and try to roll that DC 10 to assist. The number of times I've seen a face roll poorly, only to be saves because the rest of the party chipped in with few words and their assists. That was the beauty of a DC 10 for assists. EVERY roll could count.

Quote:

Given that rolling is and will always be an option

Personally I love rolling for stats, and I do not love the current system. The Boost array comes down to 27 point buy in PF1 before you'd apply racial bonuses. It's no wonder they added boots to the stat rolling to make it seem a more palatable alternative.

[Long John]

With the way the new stats work, I've started going back to what my Ma's old Advanced D&D books told me to do - roll for stats straight down the line. With the racial buffs, and the background buffs... it's actually really easy to make things work.

[Elleth]

It links the character and their backstory together with build intent, while assuming some baseline competence in their chosen career or natural talents, and throwing random chance out of the window.

Given that optimising and roleplaying don't exactly conflict, and that I enjoy being able to have control over what my character is actually good at, I like this. A lot.

[Wowie]

Elleth wrote:

Given that optimising and roleplaying don't exactly conflict, and that I enjoy being able to have control over what my character is actually good at, I like this. A lot.

They conflict when I want to have Draconic as a level 1 language but the class I'm playing is perfectly happy with a 10 in INT and really wants that 18/16/14 in the primary/secondary/tertiary stats (call it STR DEX CON in any combination for a martial). This isn't really aimed at you and more aimed at the system expecting nothing less than fully optimized characters.

[magnaangemon01]

My Goblin has 18/16/12/12/10/10.

But, if you don't like this way of doing your stats, they do have the option to roll your stats, you just lose one of your ancestry's free boosts.

[Elleth]

Wowie wrote:

Elleth wrote:

Given that optimising and roleplaying don't exactly conflict, and that I enjoy being able to have control over what my character is actually good at, I like this. A lot.

They conflict when I want to have Draconic as a level 1 language but the class I'm playing is perfectly happy with a 10 in INT and really wants that 18/16/14 in the primary/secondary/tertiary stats (call it STR DEX CON in any combination for a martial). This isn't really aimed at you and more aimed at the system expecting nothing less than fully optimized characters.

Fair enough, thanks for the polite response.

[The Norv]

...I think the most interesting thing to see in the playtest is how survivable not-totally-min-maxed characters are. <.< >.>

One of my players has a charming goblin ranger built up at 14/14/14/10/10/16. Should be interesting!

[BretI]

modus0 wrote:

My question regarding the stat generation is: What makes Elf Rogue A different stat-wise from Elf Rogue B?

Why wouldn't I use 10, 18, 16, 8, 12, 14, or 10, 18, 16, 10, 12, 12 for the stats on every Elf Rogue I create?

Because you may want to multiclass into Wizard or Cleric.

Another reason would be if you wanted 3 16s instead of 18, 16, 14. At 5th level, those 3 16s turn into 3 18s. Having an expectation of how long the campaign will last can make a difference in stat generation.

[shroudb]

Dekalinder wrote:

Problem is, you can only obtain the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you pick a race with +2 in 2 of your your 3 primary stat and -2 in your chosen dump stat. This severly limit your choice of race.

For example, if you want to get 18, 16, 14 in CHA-DEX-COS your only choice of race can be halfling. There is no currently legal build choice to start with 18-16-14 in CHA-STR-COS or INT-STR-COS nor INT-DEX-COS. I didn't list all possibility since I didn't sit and try for all of them, but there are probably others.
Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is superior in all ways conceivable to the 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

While 18/16/14/12/10/8 is tougher to achieve for all race/class combinations, the almost equal value 18/14/14/14/10/8 is much easier and depending on builds, can be potentially even more powerful.

[kaid]

I think the way the stat arrays are created is pretty solid. Easy to get an "optimized" type array without that much problem or you can go for more balanced with the point buy stuff. Then with the rolled method you still get a fair amount of specific +2 boosts so that becomes a lot more viable option rather than the feast/famine pure roll 4d6 drop one did.

[Tallow]

One thing I'm growing to enjoy is the fact that high stats are no longer almost mandatory. I can have the 16's and 12's character or the straight 14's across the board, and be highly effective.

Those who always build to an 18 are only limiting themselves. It is not the system that is limiting them.

[Ckorik]

My character has the following array:

16
14
12
12
12
10

(not in that order). When we get bumps we get +2 to 4 abilities 4 times leveling up (5, 10, 15, 20). If a stat is 18 this only is a +1 - items for a stat over 18 give a static +2. Max stat

Level 5:
18
16
14
14
12
10

(yours: 19,18,16,14,10,8)

Level 10:
18
18
16
16
14
10

(yours: 20,19,18,16,10,8)

Level 15:
18
18
18
18
16
12

(yours: 21,20,19,18,10,8)

Level 20:
19
19
18
18
18
14

(yours: 22,21,20,19,10,8)

My array is: +4,+4,+4,+4,+4,+2

Yours is: +6,+5,+4,0,-1

Net difference: +2,+1,0,-4,-3

I submit my array ends up better than yours at high levels - if the math in the game is tight enough that a +2 difference means crit failure vs failure.

I'm unsure how true it will be without actual testing. We'll see ;)

[Moro]

Tallow wrote:

One thing I'm growing to enjoy is the fact that high stats are no longer almost mandatory. I can have the 16's and 12's character or the straight 14's across the board, and be highly effective.

Those who always build to an 18 are only limiting themselves. It is not the system that is limiting them.

There is no difference, from what I can see. The bonus for stats has not changed, which means that for every two points in a stat, your chance of success goes up 5% relative to whatever d20 roll is associated with it. This is identical.

If anything, with the focus on flattening of the number curves, and the smaller range in "best-to-worst" in skills, each +1 is now a bigger deal, so higher stats would be of even more importance in this new system.

[The Norv]

Tallow wrote:

One thing I'm growing to enjoy is the fact that high stats are no longer almost mandatory. I can have the 16's and 12's character or the straight 14's across the board, and be highly effective.

Those who always build to an 18 are only limiting themselves. It is not the system that is limiting them.

I am VERY glad to hear this, assuming that's how it felt in combat.

Moro wrote:

If anything, with the focus on flattening of the number curves, and the smaller range in "best-to-worst" in skills, each +1 is now a bigger deal, so higher stats would be of even more importance in this new system.

Can you expand on this? Maybe I'm dense (not a game designer or a math person), but wouldn't having flatter curves mean that characters with a smaller bonus have a higher chance of succeeding?

[Moro]

The Norv wrote:

Tallow wrote:

One thing I'm growing to enjoy is the fact that high stats are no longer almost mandatory. I can have the 16's and 12's character or the straight 14's across the board, and be highly effective.

Those who always build to an 18 are only limiting themselves. It is not the system that is limiting them.

I am VERY glad to hear this, assuming that's how it felt in combat.

Moro wrote:

If anything, with the focus on flattening of the number curves, and the smaller range in "best-to-worst" in skills, each +1 is now a bigger deal, so higher stats would be of even more importance in this new system.

Can you expand on this? Maybe I'm dense (not a game designer or a math person), but wouldn't having flatter curves mean that characters with a smaller bonus have a higher chance of succeeding?

There is much less disparity between a character who is considered "poor" at something, and a character who would be considered "best" at the same thing.

In the older system, the gap was wider, and each individual +1 meant less in the grand scheme of things. This new system seems to have closed that gap, making each bonus much more valuable overall.